En quoi consiste l’explication d’une action ? La question, fondamentale pour toute réflexion méthodologique sur les sciences de l’homme, renvoie d’abord à une pratique commune. Dans nos rapports à autrui, il arrive que la compréhension fasse défaut. C’est alors que surgit le besoin d’explication, afin de comprendre la conduite d’autrui ou encore éclairer les autres sur ce que nous faisons… Qu’est-ce qu’une action intentionnelle ? Les pensées d’un agent causent-elles son comportement ? Comment caractériser le savoir qu’un agent possède de (...) sa propre action ? Quel rapport l’explication d’une action entretient-elle avec ce savoir ? À quelles conditions est-il possible de comprendre autrui ? S’appuyant sur l’approche logico-grammaticale de Ludwig Wittgenstein et d’Elizabeth Anscombe, Rémi Clot-Goudard récuse les conceptions faisant des prédicats psychologiques les noms d’états ou d’événements internes aux agents et connus d’eux seuls. Il fait valoir que le caractère intentionnel des actions doit se comprendre à partir des règles qui gouvernent leur mode de description et qu’il faut rapporter les intentions au raisonnement pratique et à la connaissance pratique pour cerner leur force explicative. Il soutient ainsi que la maîtrise des concepts psychologiques est un savoir-faire enté sur l’expressivité naturelle du corps humain et la dimension intrinsèquement sociale et institutionnelle de la vie humaine – invitant ainsi ses lecteurs à se déprendre de l’illusion moderne d’un “sujet désengagé”. (shrink)

Many philosophers nowadays take for granted a causalist view of action explanation, according to which intentional action is a movement caused by mental antecedents. For them, “the possibility of human agency evidently requires that our mental states – our beliefs, desires, and intentions – have causal effects in the physical world: in voluntary actions our beliefs and desires, or intentions and decisions, must somehow cause our limbs to move in appropriate ways” (Jaegwon Kim, Mind in a Physical World, Cambridge (MA), (...) MIT Press, 2000 (1998), p. 31). The main question then is not to know whether there is mental causation at all, but how we should account for it. How can the mind move our body? In her 1983 paper, “The Causation of Action”, Elizabeth Anscombe shows how confused this way of putting things is. For her, if intentions or beliefs can indeed be taken to be causes of action, it is not in any metaphysically problematic sense. Seeing this requires us to distinguish clearly two theses: (1) “to be done in execution of a certain intention” is not a causal relation between intention and action; (2) an intention may be said to cause something: but this pertains to a specific kind of causal history, different from that which is uncovered by physical enquiry. First we will show how the metaphysical problem of mental causation arises from a given conception of action. Then we will turn to Anscombe’s arguments in favour of the two aforementioned theses. (shrink)

En philosophie de l’esprit, la compréhension d’autrui est volontiers présentée comme le fruit d’une activité complexe d’attribution d’états mentaux, ou mindreading. La question centrale est alors celle de savoir comment accéder à l’esprit d’autrui. L’article soutient que cette façon d’aborder le sujet doit être rejetée, au profit d’une élucidation de la compréhension repartant de notre capacité à décrire spontanément ce que fait quelqu’un. Identifier une action apparaît comme l’exercice d’une capacité conceptuelle acquise par l’insertion dans un enchevêtrement de pratiques qui (...) caractérise un monde social. L’examen des conditions de l’apprentissage des concepts jette alors une lumière nouvelle sur le phénomène de l’incompréhension. (shrink)

To what extent can an agent be held responsible for what he does? According to Aristotle, we are answerable for our voluntary actions, the “voluntary” being “[1] that of which the origin is in oneself, [2] when one knows the particular factors that constitute the location of action.” This question, which was of paramount importance for Anscombe, led her to focus on the second, epistemic condition of responsibility. This chapter suggests that in fact, a large part of her philosophy of (...) action can be read as an effort to build a complex and subtle answer to the question what kind of knowledge an agent must have of his own action in order for him to be accountable for it (and/or for all or some of its consequences). In Intention, Anscombe shows that for his action to be intentional under some description, an agent must have a practical knowledge of it under this very description; that is why ignorance can sometimes be put forward as a ground for exoneration. But ignorance can also be blameworthy, when the agent could and should have known what he is ignorant of. Elucidating the possibility of voluntary ignorance brings into light a fundamental obligation to know which takes its meaning from, and has its roots in, Anscombe’s Thomist background. (shrink)

En quoi consiste l’explication des actions humaines? Au sein de la philosophie analytique, la réponse standard à cette question, que les travaux de Davidson ont largement contribué à façonner, est la conception causaliste : expliquer une action consiste à mentionner la raison pour laquelle l’agent l’a accomplie, conçue comme la combinaison particulière d’états mentaux (désir et croyance) dont l’occurrence est la cause des mouvements corporels constituant l’action. En identifiant les raisons à des causes, cette conception a fait ressurgir les questions (...) métaphysiques modernes touchant la causalité mentale, la nature de l’esprit et sa relation au monde physique. Mais les difficultés auxquelles donne lieu le causalisme ne justifient-elles pas plutôt son réexamen? C’est ce que se proposent de faire les auteurs des contributions réunies dans ce volume, que ce soit pour en défendre et en prolonger les intuitions fondatrices ou au contraire pour en contester le bien-fondé. (shrink)

This article derives from my participation in the II Congress of Childhood Studies: Politicizations and Aesthetics, held in September 2019, at UERJ/Maracanã. My speech entitled Childhoods, Culture and Intergenerational Relations in everyday life, was delivered in the conference “The ethnic-racial issue and the generational issue in childhood” having at its core extreme burning issues in Childhood Studies: both ethnic-racial and generational issues, arguing how these intersecting points have effects on the daily life of Brazilian children, especially children from the popular (...) classes who live in the outskirts of the big cities, such as the slums and urban borders of the state of Rio de Janeiro. In this pre-text, I chose to speak of this Other, named the child from the popular classes, the one who lives in the outskirts, in slums and popular areas. Those who, despite being infants deprived of speech, dare to speak among themselves and are spoken of by us, teachers and researchers of childhood. Considering our proposal of establishing conversation as a device for an encounter, I tried to speak of this Other, using my notes from the day of the conference, and the voices of authors with whom I dialogue in my studies, researches and daily work in different territories of the city, understanding the contemporary city as a place of encounters, both good and bad. Above all, the city is a place of intergenerational meetings where the co-existence is possible. (shrink)

Dans le monde philosophique anglophone, Elizabeth Anscombe fait déjà partie des références incontournables. Son nom est généralement associé à celui de Wittgenstein dont elle fut l’un des principaux éditeurs et traducteurs. Mais elle est aussi l’auteure reconnue de deux contributions majeures : Intention , à l’origine du renouveau contemporain de la philosophie de l’action, et « Modern moral philosophy » , qui ouvrit la voie au retour de l’éthique des vertus. La philos..

Escrito en tiempos pandémicos, socializamos en el artículo los diálogos del Grupo Voces de la Educación con los movimientos docentes latinoamericanos que realizan investigaciones desde la escuela y la comunidad. Defendemos la pluralidad, diversidad y potencia de tales experiencias en la producción de otros procesos formativos, que nos llaman a la construcción de solidaridades necesarias para afrontar la barbarie de los tiempos actuales.

This paper defends the action-theory of the Will, according to which willing G is doing F (F≠G) in order to make G happen. In a nutshell, willing something is doing something else in order to bring about what we want. -/- I argue that only the action-theory can reconcile two essential features of the Will. (i) its EFFECTIVITY: willing is closer to acting than desiring. (ii) its FALLIBILITY: one might want something in vain. The action-theory of the will explains EFFECTIVITY (...) by claiming that each time one wants G, one accomplishes the action of doing F ( it is argued following Von Wright that every action has a result as a proper part, here F). And the action-theory explains FALLIBILITY by claiming that although willing G entails making some F happen –the result of the action of willing–, it does not entail that G –the intended consequence of our willing– will happen. -/- By contrast, behaviorist accounts of the will (which merely equate willing with an action) captures its EFFECTIVITY but loose its FALLIBILITY. And volitionist accounts (which introduce naked volitions lacking any essential results) capture the FALLIBILITY of the will, but loose its EFFECTIVITY. -/- I consider disjunctivist accounts of trying (such as O'Shaughnessy and Hornsby's ones) as an alternative way to reconcile EFFECTIVITY and FALLIBILITY. I argue that though the view manages to reconcile these two constraints, it does so only at the price of gerrymandering the concept of willing (or trying): failed tryings end up having nothing in common with successful ones. -/- I then address three objections to the action-theory of the will, to the effect (i) that not all actions have a result (ii) that total failures are possible (iii) that willing is more fundamental than acting. I argue in answer (i) that all actions have results (results which can be irrelevant to the production of the goal, or which can be merely mental images), (ii) that total failures do not correspond to acts of will, but to mere desires or wishes, and (iii) that given the possibility of basic actions, acting has to be more fundamental than willing (and trying). (shrink)